What do you think is the basis for human rights and justice? Do all human beings have equal rights? Why or why not? Why should we care about protecting someone else's rights?

It has been argued that morality is a social construct, that it exists because morality confers some evolutionary advantage through natural selection.

However, the notion of a human right seems contrary to the process of natural selection, i.e. a right is grounded in the idea that people inherently deserve certain protections, while natural selection is grounded in the idea that only those able to survive deserve to do so.

It is suggested that notions of morality and moral conduct are conducive to survival of the specie, e.g. that self-sacrificial love, while costly to the individual, provides an evolutionary advantage to the group.

Is it possible that Christian morality may be understood in terms of, or even derived from, the forces of natural selection? Is there something about morality in general or Christian morality in particular that cannot be explained in these terms? Is the right to life merely an extension of the right to survive by any means?

Consider the following issues surrounding abortion:

What does it mean to be a person?

The irresolvable conflict between pro-life and pro-choice has not changed. It is time to think in new ways about abortion by thinking in new ways about who and what we are, about what it means to be a person.

Abortion is legal because a fetus, while recognized as human in nature and living, is not legally recognized as a person and so does not possess rights that must be protected. This leads to questions of personhood, and, more importantly, of humanity.

Unprecedented advances in biotechnology demand that we reexamine not only what it means to be a person, in the legal sense, but also what it means to be human, in the biological sense. Blending two species to make a new one, a chimera, is a good example that may not be too far away. If human DNA and animal DNA are mixed to produce new life forms, how much human DNA must be present for the new creature to be considered "human"? If human, what measure will establish a chimera as a person? Ultimately, the answers will be determined by what we choose, as will the fate of many yet-to-be-created organisms, human or not, persons or not, as the case may be. Likewise, experimental research or, dare I suggest, commercial product development involving genetically modified embryos, or embryonic stem cell therapies, create highly controversial ethical dilemmas.

In like manner, any point in fetal development selected to define personhood is difficult to justify because there are so many unknown variables. Some hold that personhood begins at conception and others at implantation, while the law holds it is established at birth, whatever that means. With the advent of the modern c-section, our notions of what constitutes "birth" had to be revised. Note that in so called "partial birth" abortions, most of the fetus is actually outside the mother at the time the fetal brain is destroyed, although at 5 or 6 months, the fetus is not viable. But what if modern medicine learns how to keep such a preemie alive until it is viable, what then?

Someone once asked "if killing a fetus by accident is manslaughter, e.g. under the terms of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, what is killing it on purpose?" This Act is predicated on the notion that the mother alone has the right to determine the fate of the fetus, not on any rights the fetus may have under the law. To underscore the rights of the mother, specific provisions of the Act prevent prosecution of the mother in any case, even if the mother survives a suicide attempt, but the fetus does not.

Abortion is controversial because notions of personhood are either absolute or relative, and these are mutually exclusive deeply held moral convictions. Each of these bring their own concerns. If personhood begins at conception, according to an absolutist view, then extreme forms of vigilantism, such as killing abortion doctors or bombing abortion clinics, are justified as protection of the most innocent, and therefore moral imperatives.

On the other hand, history repeatedly shows that relativism regarding personhood leads to dehumanization, which by definition, distinguishes an “us” from a “them”. This distinction has always preceded killing on grand scales, which explains the absolutist argument that abortion is genocide. Ironically, it is the perpetrators of genocide who are dehumanized, not their victims, by the self-induced alienation from humanity needed to perpetuate the psychological distinction between themselves and their victims. In the case of abortion, the fetus, person or not, has been distinguished from humanity to the extent that each year there are 1.25 million abortions in the US and 50 million worldwide.The question here is not what a fetus is or is not, but rather, what "we" have become in order to kill so many of "them".

My goal here is not to suggest one perspective over the other, but rather to ask what it means to be who and what we are, because our understanding of personhood determines not only who we are, but also who we will become. Before we can resolve the debate over abortion, we must literally come to terms with what it means to be a person.

Given a choice about what it means to be a person, I hope we who currently qualify will choose wisely.

I would agree with the idea of a right ,being "grounded in the idea that people inherently deserve certain protections".

This is similar to something I heard somewhere, that stated pretty much "the making of laws defending rights, is not giving the people rights they didn't have, but simply stating the rights they had all along"

I believe that when the government gives people (Y) a right of free speech and a right to make their views/ideology public, but on the other hand the restrains the religious views of people (X) (that may contradict with this ideology) to be made public or expressed in any way; that are not giving (Y) a special right, they are stating a right they already inherently have (that should be exerted up to an extend) and are saying that (X) does not have this right (but they inherently also have it).

On that topic I would like to mention something I am personally going through as I run for elections in my university. I am noticing I am in an institution that preaches a secular ideology and defends it so cunningly that I am beginning to feel discriminated against because I am a christian and if I make my views public I will be rebuked by a group of people because my view contradicts they're belief. Following this I am likely to be told I cannot express myself publicly in such a manner, here it is that I clearly see they are putting to practice the removal of my free speech right.

What is also disturbing is that, certain very liberal groups promote what in my view would be very immoral events (an example can be seen In the promotion of Yale's Sex week) exposing others who may well be offended by these ideas. In my university these can being done:

A) in a concealed way in the name of : "Equity-discrimination awareness week" Using the good/righteous idea of dismissing sexism, racism and discrimination against LGBTQ (the last a rather fuzzy definition) to also promote a secular ideology, like the LGBTQ ideals, but then prohibiting anyone who peacefully (rather than violently or with hatred) disagrees to speak their mind.

B) in a slightly more evident way in the name of: "a sexual education center" Vibrators are put on a stand together with many books on sexually unrestrained topics. Not sexuality but sexual acts are supported. Only one book did I find relating to a more moral approach with dignity. Rather than educated one is encouraged and indoctrinated into what a secular institution BELIEFS in.

C) in a clearly evident manner in the name of: "a sex pub" where little clothing is encouraged and posted are pictures of people (of clearly different "sexual inclinations") making or more also with little clothing.

My point is: even though it is great to stand for a healthy education on a persons sexuality, no discrimination, equity and free speech; these are many times abused and used to promote increasingly evident secular ideals. I now think that secularism is a religion, and a fiercely guarded one.

There are many topics of this sort where the fine line must be clearly identified, many are done in the name of human rights.

gustavoadolfo43,

You said "...if I make my views public I will be rebuked by a group of people because my view contradicts they're belief. Following this I am likely to be told I cannot express myself publicly in such a manner, here it is that I clearly see they are putting to practice the removal of my free speech right."

Of course, you have to decide for yourself what you are prepared to do in the face of opposition. Being a candidate in an election at your university, you are subjecting yourself to a certain amount of scrutiny in exchange for the chance to represent others, or to serve the campus community in some special capacity.

While the university culture is secular, as is mine, one would hope you would not be rebuked for your faith, or forbidden to "express yourself publicly in such a manner", both of which would likely meet the criteria for unlawful discrimination.

It sounds like you are in a position to test the character of your university community by challenging its sensibilities. If you are a student, have you contacted any christian student groups to gain their support? If you are faculty or staff, do you have any christian F/S groups you can talk with about this? That would be my first suggestion, so you can get some objective counsel from others there who might have insights on the questions you have raised.

Best Regards,

NotATameLion

Staying on topic, the answer to this issue, namely "what is the basis for human rights and justice?", DEPENDS entirely on your specific belief on the ORIGIN of humanity.

- If you are a naturalist and believer in the theory of evolution in any of its variations then the answer is simple and straight forward: humans have NO rights whatsoever because DNA is uncaring and seeks only its own survival; hence, justice is a NON-SEQUITUR in a materialistic existence.

- If you believe in some form of INTELLIGENT creator/legislator/divinity/God (as is my own personal conviction for I am a christian, being one of Jehovah's Witnesses) then the BASIS for human rights and justice is set by a Legislator, whomever so you believe him to be. The issue of whether or not ALL humans have EQUAL RIGHTS would then depend SOLELY on the CREATOR's PERSPECTIVE on this matter. Does a Creator favor some humans over others, giving more rights to some than to others? Does a Creator bestow upon humans certain conditional rights? If so, what are those conditions? Can certain rights be revoked from humans? Is so, by whom may they be revoked, by other humans or by the Creator? What criteria is to be used in the revocation process? Can new rights be attained, expanded, transfered, purchased or negated? In essence, if a Legislator has appointed rights to ALL humans then they DO have rights, if he has not then they have none.

My conviction is that an Intelligent Creator HAS attributed certain INALIENABLE rights to all humanity, some that may be CONDITIONAL while other rights are bestowed UNDESERVINGLY upon some humans. Also, human rights, given to OTHERS by a Creator, should be protected by all other humans, especially if those persons claim to be supporters of a Creator.

In retrospect, this issue depends ultimately upon an individuals, or a collectives, belief on the ORIGIN of all humanity. References available upon request.

Have a nice day!

--lordofillusions
Vis veris veniversum vivus vici

To clarify, gustavoadolfo43's situation is a specific case of the topic, specifically the right to express oneself and why we should care about someone else's right to do so.

Another question that arises, based on the excellent comments by lordofillusions, is whether animals have rights. In scripture, God holds animals accountable if they kill a human, therefore they have responsibility before the Lord. (see Gen 9:5) In my view, those who bear responsibility are entitled to rights. (even those who don't bear responsibility have rights, but that is another question) Perhaps it is because we have responsibilities that we also have rights. Also, see Ecc 3:18-21, in which God compares animals and mankind, i.e. shows what attributes they share. See Jer 27:6, in which God tells how even the animals will be subject to Nebuchadnezzar. In Mat 12:11, Jesus demonstrates that it is permissible to break the Sabbath to save an animal that has fallen into a pit. Some may argue that it is because the animal has value to its owner, but many things have value that are not cause for breaking the law. Perhaps it is because there is a higher law that is kept in saving the animal rather than keeping the Sabbath. Perhaps it has something to do with what the animal is entitled to, i.e. compassion? See Hebrews 12:20, in which God requires that even if an animal touches the holy mountain, it must be stoned. This suggests to me that an animal is not irrelevant with respect to holiness.

"What does it mean to be a person?"

I've been reading discussions recently that focus on how meaning is interpreted.
It seems that the world is obsessed with confusing and obfuscating meaning. The world asserts that a listener has sovereign control of how meaning is constructed from what is heard, leaving the speaker with no control over what he or she intended to mean. This of course is antecedent to relativism and every other “-ism” that confuses meaning (actually destroys meaning), compartmentalizes concepts, and effectively takes away the individual’s right communicate what was intended. I can’t help but think "Apollyon" when considering the effect of this type of thinking. As believers we’ve all experienced the frustration of communicating with people who embrace this method of constructing meaning. What really governs meaning is a speaker’s intent.

So what does this have to do with when a person becomes a person? Maybe it’s a stretch but isn’t a child <i>intended</i> by a man and woman when they have sex? Isn’t that what it means to be a person, --to have parents who intended procreation through sex? Even if that intention is subconscious or only manifests itself as sexual attraction I believe that intention is there. Just a thought.

anotherjarvi

Upon what should human (rights) laws be based?

--Humans should stop making baseless laws (at best, the base is impossible to know) and let nature take its course. (N/S)

--Human (rights) laws should reflect the fallible will of legislators, per culture, or reflect laws which are constructs of human evolution. (V)

--Human (rights) laws should reach across cultural boundaries and reflect discovered, essential moral standards. (E)

If you answered (N/S)--
You are a nihilist or skeptic. You either think there is no moral truth, created or discovered, or you think it is impossible to know what is true when it comes to morality. If you think there are things that are really, truly wrong, like abuses of the church, or napalming babies--you might want to rethink your position. If you have ever felt wronged or felt someone else was wronged--you might want to rethink your position. If you have ever admired someone for their good character--you might want to rethink your position. You may "believe" there is no discoverable moral truth--but you live as if you "know" there is discoverable moral truth. Really, you are an essentialist at heart, since you will not allow for a temporary, artificial construct to pass as truth.

If you answered (V)--
You are a voluntarist; your convictions are floating over an abyss. You think moral truth is created, not discovered, or you 'discover' it where it cannot be found. If you value love as the highest good, you don't think it is an eternal good discoverable by all rationally-intuitive consciences, but that it is self- or group-defined, or a construct of evolution. You either believe that our purpose is a construct of human evolution, or that "existence precedes essence" (Sartre) and we create our own purpose individually (that appealing to human nature or Authority is a cop-out). If God is in this picture, He arbitrarily wills that something is good, rather than being the essential source of goodness and willing in accordance with His good nature, but you most-likely believe that goodness is a construct of human will, or human evolution. You either believe human (rights) laws should be based in the arbitrary will of God, the fallible will of legislators, per culture, or that they should reflect laws which are constructs of human evolution. Since you do not acknowledge essential moral truth, your position reduces to nihilism, which violates your rationally-intuitive conscience.

If you answered (E)--
You are an essentialist, standing on solid ground. You believe moral truth is essential to reality, discovered with our reason (rules out error) and intuition (resonates)--rather than created by human will or evolved with human nature. You believe that how we should be, what we should do, the ultimate end, is love (God). You believe happiness/love/goodness is common ground discovered by all with a rationally intuitive conscience: loving others as we love ourselves. You believe essence precedes existence-our purpose/virtue exists to be discovered in the eternal, whose essence is His existence, and vice versa. You believe God wills in accordance with His good, loving nature--He is what is essentially good (He did not have to develop virtue, but is the virtue He helps us to develop). You believe human (rights) laws should reach across cultural boundaries and reflect discovered, essential moral standards.

http://ichthus.yuku.com/topic/71/t/Poll----essentialist---voluntarist--moral-truth-discovered.html

I would argue that there is no separating questions of ethics from questions of meaning in life.
Simply put, we cannot know what is right or wrong treatment of a person until we know what the purpose of that person happens to be. That is to say, his/her reason for existence.
As with other arguments, it becomes clear that purely material reasons for existence do not lend themselves to ethics regarding humanity any more than to ethics regarding inorganic matter.

Utilitarianists may argue that these things have different traits, and, therefore, different potential uses for us. This is true, but does not account for what might be called "sacrificial morality" in which the individual willingly loses more than he/she gains by an action, but commits it for ethical purposes. I have encountered two basic secular responses to this:

1. That the individual has advanced the group by the sacrifice
This is usually put forth by proponents of evolutionary models of ethics. The most obvious problem with them is the fact that they offer no reason for the individual to behave in this manner. More significantly, in my view, is the fact that this is purely commentary on what factors might cause humans to behave this way, and does not remotely justify such actions. As Hume argues, one can't derive a "should" from an "is".

2. That there was no actual loss
This is usually done by invoking the idea that the person in question is getting the reward of knowing that he/she is an ethical person. While this suggestion is initially impressive, I find that it does not hold up well in many circumstances. The most notable of these is the sacrifice of one's life. Were we not to invoke any kind of religious belief, such a sacrifice is the offering of all one's future happiness to achieve a purpose one will never see to fruition. In fact one has neither assurance that the purpose in question will come to fruition nor a guarantee of time to reflect/enjoy having been "moral". Beyond this is the fact that the idea that morality, having been redefined as a seeking of one's own personal good in a more careful and temperate manner, seems to have lost all value. There hardly seems to be relish in the thought "I've done myself a favor by proving that I am willing to serve my need for being good so far as even to give my life for a cause which makes me feel good about myself".
Even were the above not the case, one still hasn't made the connection between what feels better to an individual and what "should" be done. There is no means here to differentiate between the sacrificial saving of a child and a suicide bombing.

The only way I see to reach ethics as humans invoke the term in our speech and literature is, of course, to reference the idea that human beings were created for an objective purpose by something which has the power and/or intelligence to create and/or know objective purpose. Purpose, however, cannot be created, and certainly can't be known by a something, but only a someone.